Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer

Previously (A Tale of Two Thermometers) we looked at how US temperature data sets have been adjusted - with more recent versions of historical data sets showing a steeper rise in temperature than they used to.

We observe that the data has been consistently adjusted towards a bias of greater warming. The years prior to the 1970s have again been adjusted to lower temperatures, and recent years have been adjusted towards higher temperatures.

So how does NASA's data compare with other temperature sources? During the last thirty years, we also have the benefit of more sophisticated technology - satellites which can indirectly record temperatures across most of the planet. The satellite data is from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

In 1998 (left side of the graph below) NASA and the satellite data sources RSS and UAH all agreed quite closely - within one-tenth of a degree. Ten years later - in March 2008 - NASA is reporting temperature anomalies more than 0.5 degrees warmer than UAH.

Differences between reported temperature anomalies, NASA, RSS and UAH - with UAH as the baseline.

Whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy, we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world's leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming, and is Al Gore's primary climate advisor.

You can’t take anything they say seriously because they are adjusting the historical numbers to suit their desires. They do the same with their “models” which aren’t even close to simulating the complexity necessary to predict long term climate patterns and even if they could do that they could still produce results that are way off mark just because of the very nature of the climate where singular events can cause drastic effects. None of the current models can explain past periods of warming prior to the industrial age. Nor can they explain the cooling period during the time of the greatest expansion of industrialization.

I saw a commercial the other day about Polar Bears threatened with extinction. It was such an utter lie that it was sickening. The polar bear populations have been growing not decreasing and they adapt to warm weather very effectively like most animals do. Warming periods in the past are also directly associated with the periods of the greatest diversification of life on this planet. Sure there are some species that suffer but representatives survive and take advantage of the greater availability of resources. The Global warming liars(what else can a sane person call them?) are in search of justification for the outright socialist take over of even more trillions of dollars from tax payers and not just that but threaten our very way of life because if their lies win the day it is the American Dream that will disappear not the polar bear.

Good observation. It is really ridiculous. It is hard to be serious about it while starring into the doe eyed innocence of a college coed looking for a cause or a little child sent out on the mission to fight evil incandescent bulbs by the teaching idiot class. What always fascinates me is that history to the left appears to be however they wish to see it.
It does not matter the issue. They succeed only when the preponderance of previous knowlege is denied wholesale and peripheral ideas are given dominance not because of the credibility of their arguments but because of the lack of knowledge by those who they deceive with their alarmist and outrageous claims.

A couple of years ago, someone did a study of where theese thermometers are placed. Many are placed near heat sources or in places that give off heat. That makes them gie you higher readings.

Even the global warming hoaxers, though, are admitting that for 10 years we’ve been in a cooler period — one they say is only temporary (only anothr 10-15 years), and will definitely be followed by another warming period.

IOW, they’re saying that climate change is cyclical. Cool — warm — cool — warm, etc.

IOW, they’re conceding our point — we won!

If you want to examine the bias, visit Watts' Surface Stations website. The slide show of the project's findings is amazing.

The chart belows shows the error classification of over 500 evaluated stations using the NOAA's classification system.

Class 1 and 2 are good. 3 results in a 1 deg C error. 4 yields an error between 2 and 5 deg C and 5 is greater than 5 deg C. There is additional bias based on the type of measurement instrument used (and the instruments vary all over the place).

Now, if GISS was adjusting data to correct for measurement errors and urban heat island effect, they would adjust recent temperature down. However, they're doing the exact opposite. The satellite temperature record from UAH and RSS makes the bias clear.

Couple this with Steve McIntyre's ability to catch GISS screwing up and it seems clear that we're about to allocate trillions of dollars on a problem that may not exist. The upward trend in temperature may be far less than what GISS claims because their data's bad to begin with, and then it's tweaked to make it worse.

Below is the before and after of GISS data after McIntyre caught Hansen's Y2K error...

In April, McIntyre caught GISS fudging the numbers again.

The arrogance of James Hansen is unbelievable. He screws up, says the 0.15 degree adjustment is insignificant. McIntyre points out that the upward trend in the GISS temperature record from 1930 to 2006 is only 0.13 degrees...

Hansen dismisses McIntyre as "court jester" and claims that he (Hansen) is out to prevent the "destruction of Creation." I'm not kidding. And this is the principle referee of the U.S. surface temperature record? He's got some "issues."

BTW, McIntyre also took off after the guy who claimed there was no urban heat island effect in the IPCC report (the actual quote is, "rural station trends were almost indistinguishable from series including urban sites"). According to McIntyre, his classification of "cities" was too broad, so McIntyre narrowed the definition, comparing rural stations against those in towns with a major league sports franchise...

How can anyone have confidence in the U.S. temperature record? And if the U.S. temperature record is the best in the world, how can anyone have confidence in any other country's record?

Shouldn't we stick to the satellites? Oops. I forgot. The satellites don't indicate there's much of a problem.

Remember, the mission is to prevent the "destruction of Creation!"

I wonder what, if any, the technology NASA uses can tell us about warming on the other planets? I don’t know. Seems like a legitimate question. There are other planets in the solar system. What is happening with their climate?

Or take the low-tech approach. Seafarers have always maintained accurate weather data—their life depended upon it. Surely there exists weather data in log books from days of yore that could be used to facilitate the debate, or the lack thereof. Just a thought. Anyone know anything about either scenario? Other planets climate? Magellan’s logbooks?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.